The Music and Acting in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory of 1971 Vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory of 2005

In 1972, Mel Stuart’s Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was nominated for an Oscar for having the Best Music, Scoring Adaptation, and Original Song Score. Again during that same year, the star of the film, Gene Wilder, was nominated for a Golden Globe as the Best Motion Picture Actor. These nominations are to be carefully examined and compared to the more recent Willy Wonka adaption; Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory of 2005. From 2005 to 2006, this film was nominated for thirty-three nominations, and won twelve awards, most of which related to the impeccable acting of Johnny Depp. Though kids and teens judged many of these award categories, The Phoenix Film Critics Society awarded Burton’s adaption with the Best Original Score. Whether or not one can judge the quality of both film productions based on awards alone, it is important to note that since the ‘70s, the film industry has created many more categories that one can be nominated for.

Mr. Mel Stuart

By the time that director Mel Stuart’s ten-year-old daughter had read Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator a multitude of times, she pleaded with her father to make a film. Prior to the creation of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in 1971, Producer David Wolper had been previously responsible for eighty-five television series, documentaries, and films, in which he received an immense amount of attention. After first being nominated for an Academy Award in 1959 for his documentary The Race for Space, Wolper managed to finally win the award in 1971 for conceiving and directing his documentary, The Hellstrom Chronicle. When Stuart asked Wolper to direct Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, he was incredibly intrigued by the proposal. At the time, Wolper was in the process of making a deal with Quaker Oats Company to introduce a new candy bar from their Chicago-based Breaker Confections subsidiary, since renamed “The Willy Wonka Candy Company,” and sold to Nestle. With persuasion, Wolper managed to convince Quaker Oats to buy the rights to the book and finance the picture for the purpose of promoting a new Quaker Oats Wonka Bar.

The original intention was to honor Roald Dahl’s book by turning the film into a children’s musical, but Wolper preferred the film to be a straight dramatic piece. The plan was to have Dahl himself write the screenplay; however, there were more parties involved with heavy influence on direction. Due to the monetary involvement of the Quaker Oats Company, the film title was changed to “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” which would promote their new candy bar. This title change took the focus off of Charlie Bucket as the star of the show, and now highlighted a more mysterious Mr. Willy Wonka. This quite upset Roald Dahl as he felt the children’s story was already changing without his full consent. Both Stuart and Wolper agreed that the film would not be a full-blown musical, though the lyrical content would help emphasize the story’s key moments and become identifiable all throughout the film.

Holding the rights to the Wonka film production, the auditioning process was quite agonizing for Mr. Dahl. His first choice to play Willy Wonka was Irish playwright and comedian, Spike Milligan, who quickly turned down the role. Dahl’s next choice was British actor Ron Moody, who also turned down the role for personal reasons. Next, Dahl thought that maybe English actor Jon Pertwee would shine in the role as Willy Wonka, but he was too busy with his involvement in Doctor Who at the time. When American Broadway star Joel Grey was turned down due to his small physical stature, the production team announced that they would be holding auditions in New York to find the perfect Willy Wonka to represent the writing of Roald Dahl. Once the production team saw the sheer talent of Gene Wilder, he was immediately awarded the role. He was the perfect embodiment of Willy Wonka, and the team realized that they had found who they were looking for all along. That is, with the exception of skeptical Dahl who still harped on Spike Milligan playing Wonka’s role. Unnerved about previous business deals, he felt control of the film’s direction slipping through his fingertips. Since then, the production team held further auditions that were held in New York, London, and Munich to fill the parts of the children and their parents.

Dahl’s use of poetry hinted to the use of music from the very beginning. As quoted from the book, “How can you whip cream without whips? Whipped cream isn’t whipped cream at all unless it’s been whipped with whips. Just as a poached egg isn’t a poached egg unless it’s been stolen from the woods in the dead of night!” (Dahl 94). This particular use of poetic and creative language stirs-up a multitude of images in the minds eye. Particularly dark, it seems only natural that Dahl envisioned his 1964 children’s book to be rich with music. On the outside we are showered with candy, but the ulterior motives are rather mysterious.  One particularly popular song in the 1971 film titled “The Candy Man Can,” also had lyrics devoted to whipped cream. “Who can take tomorrow, and dip it in a dream, separate the sorrow, and collect up all the cream.
The candy man, oh the candy man can. The candy man can cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good.” The common message is that there is someone, (either Willy Wonka or the candy man) who is in charge of providing delicious candy to all the worthy children. However, we find that beneath the sweets the candy man is not giving candy to children out of the kindness of his own heart. His most important motivation is getting paid, while Willy Wonka searches for the perfect child to run his candy factory once he retires.

Wolper believed the actors could chant poems in the “manner of today’s rap, rather than perform them as songs. [He] was wary of adding musical numbers of any kind, thinking it would take away from the sense of reality [he] wanted to impart to the story” (Stuart 60). Regardless, the music written for the film by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newly has been entirely memorable almost forty-three years later. Wolper stated that his only reason for inserting a memorable sound-score had to do with money because “The Wizard of Oz made money [and] The Sound of Music was a blockbuster. Oliver was [also] a huge hit, [and] they all had songs in them” (Stuart 60). Though he fought the idea for quite a while, Mel Stuart finally gave in to having the film scored by English composer and lyricist, Leslie Bricusse. Partnering with songwriter Anthony Newley, the composers also worked with ten-time Oscar Nominee, Walter Scharf, who provided the musical direction. Though the soundtrack was first released by Paramount Records in 1971, in 1996, Hip-O Records (in conjunction with MCA Records) released the soundtrack on CD as a “25th Anniversary Edition.” The 1971 soundtrack is clearly a memorable one. It got me thinking…will there be a “25th Anniversary Edition” for the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or is it virtually unmemorable due to the somewhat underwhelming songs?

There are many mixed opinions about the 2005 film, though it is true that Tim Burton stayed true to his personal style of rather dark and mysterious directing. According to a harsh criticism by Washington Post writer Ann Hornaday, “The cumulative effect isn’t pretty. Nor is it kooky, funny, eccentric or even mildly interesting. Indeed, throughout his fey, simpering performance, Depp seems to be straining so hard for weirdness that the entire enterprise begins to feel like those excruciating occasions when your parents tried to be hip. If you have to try that hard, you just aren’t. Similarly, Burton, whose keen imagination has come up with an eye-popping palette and occasionally brilliant production design, has labored so hard to make Wonka his own — giving him a tedious back story, replete with daddy issues — that he has lost all the subtle humor and understatement that made Roald Dahl’s original story, and Mel Stuart’s 1971 adaptation, “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” so charming in the first place” (Hornaday 1). While there are a lot of negative statements about the new adaptation expressed by Ann Hornaday, Lou Lumenick, a writer from the New York Post boasts that  “Like Roald Dahl’s book, Tim Burton’s splendidly imaginative and visually stunning – and often very dark and creepy – new version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is squarely aimed more at children than their parents (Lumenick 1). Though it was the intention of Dahl’s book to be for children, is this particular perspective something he would have appreciated? Dahl despised the 1971 film, but it is quite possible he would have agreed with the darker Tim Burton interpretation to reflect his writing.  Jami Bernard of New York Daily News said that “The eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) can’t feel pleasure, even though he’s surrounded by it, so it’s weirdly appropriate that the movie isn’t “fun,” even if it’s amazing to look at (Bernard 1). Truth be told, the film is widely appreciated as being visually stimulating, though each scene relays a ton of graphic information, hence, making it harder to relate with.   Burton’s use of color and computer graphics is completely relevant to movies produced in 2005.  Regardless of movie critics and audience members having such bipolar opinions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it is necessary to mention the wonderful working marriage between the cast and production team.

Previously partnering with Danny Elfman on movies such as The Nightmare before Christmas, Mars Attacks!, Batman Returns, Planet of the Apes, and Edward Scissorhands, Burton was more than familiar with the prolific scoring style of Mr. Elfman. Considered one of the top ten film-scoring composers of our time, Danny Elfman was placed in charge the musical content in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Through his start with American rock band Oingo Boingo in the late ‘70s, Elfman continued to vary his palette by working in an impressive number of styles and genres. Throughout his career, the composer has been nominated for four Oscars, two Emmys, and nine Grammys. He has won a whopping forty-nine awards and has been nominated fifty-one times for different honors. Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was also nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Music.

It has been noted that the 2005 film adaptation of the Dahl book, starring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, showed that a new version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could be commercially successful. This interpretation was not a musical; therefore, it invited fewer comparisons to the Wilder film. However, we see that with or without the same music, people have still harshly compared Depp’s performance to Wilder’s, saying “Depp’s depiction was decidedly detached and strangely boyish – disturbingly reminiscent of the late Michael Jackson. Just based on [his] looks alone, Depp resembles a strange version of a porcelain doll with his face covered in pale white makeup (not unusual for Depp), prosthetic teeth, and an ultra smooth, blunt bob peeking from underneath his top hat (Meriah 1). Many critics – and even Wilder himself – grumbled when Johnny Depp took on the role of Willy Wonka. Now 80 years of age, Gene Wilder claimed that Tim Burton’s film starring Johnny Depp was an ‘insult’ and that he did not ‘care for’ Burton as a director […] He added that the remake was ‘probably Warner Bros.’ insult,’ to his iconic 1971 adaptation of Roald Dahl’s famous children’s novel” (Dodge 1). Through the new movie, Warner Brother’s made a total of $474 million around the world. According to Wilder, it is about people sitting around thinking: “How can we make some more money, because why else would you remake Willy Wonka?”


Wilder’s role as Wonka was more whimsical and alluring, as he remained both eccentric and intolerant, though he also proved to be well intentioned. When Charlie wins in the 2005 film, Depp’s Wonka keeps his superficial smiling veneer intact, which alludes to his insincere, phony persona. The comparisons between Wilder vs. Depp alone are enough to sway one’s opinion of the films one way or another.

Over all, a common consensus is that the 2005 Johnny Depp version may have been more true to Roald Dahl’s interpretation of how he viewed Wonka’s darker, creepier side. According to Paul Bradshaw on Total Film: The Modern Guide to Movies, “Let’s start with Wonka himself. Johnny Depp channeled Michael Jackson into a mix of camp and creepy for his take on Dahl’s eccentric chocolatier. His constant giggling might have grated, but his boyish bravado isn’t far from the Wonka in the book” (Bradshaw 1). Apparently, “Whichever way you slice it, Stuart’s Willy Wonka just hasn’t aged well – but Burton’s Charlie And The Chocolate Factory is still as fresh, original and provocative as Dahl’s book. (Bradshaw 1). Though Roald Dahl rather disliked Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in 1971, it stood as its own piece of art. Most of the time authors aren’t filmmakers, nor are they writing their own screenplays. Roald Dahl disliked the film due to certain plot changes that strayed from his book.  His displeasure ultimately led to him disallowing any more versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be made during his lifetime. However, since Dahl passed away in 1990, Time Burton had free-reign in 2005 for the new adaption.


Despite the disputes, Johnny Depp lacked Wilder’s whimsical charm and passion that has been remembered throughout the years. The 1971 film had an incredibly popular song titled “Pure Imagination” that quickly earned the respect from people all over the world. Through the voice of Gene Wilder, “There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination. Living there you’ll be free if you truly wish to be.” This concept is something that just about everyone can relate to, which in turn, illuminated the sparkle in Wilder’s mysterious eyes. Dahl wanted Wonka to be a strange, yet ultimately kindhearted character. Generations later, people still revel in the powerful music, and revere Wilder’s acting in this film.

In this regard, both movies have their merits: Gene Wilder did a great job of the loveable chocolate factory owner, and Johnny Depp was more true to the darker side of Willy Wonka. Wilder’s depiction of Wonka exuded confidence, and he was able to keep unruly kids in check-including letting a voracious “bad egg” like Veruca Salt fall down the garbage shoot. His justifications for such actions were convincing. In the end, his heart was as golden as that ticket – though the same can’t quite be said for Depp’s chocolate-making man. “Both Wonkas were technologically savvy, but Depp’s Wonka arguably took it up a notch from Wilder’s version with his “television chocolate.” When both Wonka’s zapped their chocolate bars into ether, making them shrink down and reappear inside a television, Depp’s track was much more grand” (Meriah 1). Could this be because the technology in 2005 had advanced much further than what we had access to in the ‘70s? Maybe the grand allure of the newer version is only considered this way due to what was available at the time. Though early computers had been developed, they did not yet have the power of CGI, which would naturally allow for the more recent version to be more extravagant. In 2005, (and today) computers give filmmakers the ability to create graphic images and animate them to move on the screen. In movies using real people, they may add some background changes. For instance: they can edit a piece of sky to make it look like it’s raining. Computers can also add special effects, like louder noises, explosions, and make things disappear, etc. In this light, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory of 2005 was true to its modern production style. As far as the original 1971 film goes, videotape machines were used to edit an analogue (or a model) of the raw film footage until the “Final Cut” was decided on. Both audiotape and movie film was cut with simple machines at the break between frames and then taped together. In 1971, editing was a much more careful, slow process in order to ensure that every frame flowed smoothly and properly.

According to film editor Chris Julian, “The Wilder depiction speaks a thousand ideas in much less screen time! It comes across that he’s modest, unusual, but also whimsical, in only a few seconds, without someone “telling” us this information in the form of lyrics.” Diving more into the music and lyrical content generated, “Wonka’s Welcome Song” received its nomination in 2005 because it was both creative and comical. The opening scene displays creepy robotic puppets spinning in circles as they chant sped-up, chipmunk-tuned lyrics about Willy Wonka being overtly modest, clever, smart, and generous. (So much so that he can barely restrain it.) The twirling puppets rave about his genius, and about him being the most amazing magician and chocolatier in the world. The irony is that Johnny Depp is portrayed in an utterly creepy, pedophile-like fashion, and all the puppets catch on fire and break down.

During the same scene in 1971, Wonka limped with a cane all the way from his factory and approached the gate where all the children waited in anticipation. There were no strange or flashy displays, just a silent smiling man who “accidentally” drops his cane as he kept walking forward. The grand display occurs when he somersaults forward and jumps up for the world to see, and everyone cheers in his honor as he welcomes his friends to his chocolate factory. A symphony of horns follows the children and their parents as they march through the grand factory doors. Both movies had incredibly different scenes to portray the same event, but one film focuses on beauty and simplicity, while the other seeks to blow your mind with its uncanny flashy content.

The fanciful music from Willy Wonka in 1971 has stuck firmly in the hearts of those who saw the film. With memorable numbers like “Cheer up, Charlie,” “The Candy Man Can,” “(I’ve Got A) Golden Ticket,” “Pure Imagination,” “The Wondrous Boat Ride,” “I Want It Now!” and the variations of “Oompa Loompa,” the film was eventually turned into a twenty-million dollar operatic musical. Shockingly enough, none of the original songs were used during the making of the show. The director, Sam Mendes specifically resisted including the immensely tuneful number “Pure Imagination,” saying he already felt haunted by the performance of Gene Wilder as Wonka. “He did not want his musical’s otherwise original score to be sized up against the most beloved song from the movie” (Healy 1). According to an audience member, “It is a song you can’t get out of your head, and it’s quite hard to improve on.” Curiously, Tim Burton also did not re-use any of the music from the original film. Like the Broadway production, Warner Brothers executives wouldn’t add the same music due to the pressure of living up to the 1971 version.  What people appreciated forty years ago is not necessarily what we identify with in today’s culture. Though Roald Dahl has passed-on, his widow Felicity Dahl said that “As it turns out, “Charlie” was destined to be a music drama: “Roald always felt it was the one book that should be made into a musical. I don’t think he ever dreamt of an opera, but to be honest, I think he would be thrilled that it’s an opera, because classical music was his passion.”


As rehearsals for the Broadway production began this past spring, Mr. Mendes had mentioned that “The loving memory of Mr. Wilder began to fade as the Musical’s own interpretation of characterization grew sharper. Mr. Mendez now feels “freed” from the original movie in a way that the audiences in London, and eventually, New York will feel too” (Healy 2). Gene Wilder played the extravagant role of Wonka four decades ago, and yet the world still clearly hears him singing “Pure Imagination.” When this song was released, it managed to break down certain social barriers, as it did not matter if you were rich, poor, entitled or unworthy (like a few of the selfish children with golden tickets). You still can change the world with your imagination. The song continues to exert its influence today; the pop/rock band Maroon 5 released a cover of it in 2009, and there is also an alternative-rock band called “Varuca Salt,” named after the spoiled rich girl in Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The music group gained popularity after signing with Geffen Records in 1996.

Here’s an unofficial music video for Maroon 5’s “Pure Imagination”

As far as the Oompa Loopas go, Stuart and Wolper’s version managed to find ten different little-people to fill the parts. According to British actor Rusty Goffe (who played the role of an Oompa Loompa), six of the Oompa Loompa actors were British. Not only did they use a woman, but the production team also found qualified actors from Malta, Turkey, and Germany. Though there were only ten, Stuart and Wolper were successfully able to fool the audience into believing there were many more. We could see the fine-lines and detail in their faces, which illuminated an extraordinary amount of personality in each actor. In Roald Dahl’s book, there were supposedly hundreds of Oompa Loompas from Loompaland that were working for Willy Wonka. Thanks to today’s computer technology which allowed for duplication, Tim Burton was successfully able to mimic the entire Oompa Loompa population. Burton’s team generated identical Oompa Loompas through copying just one person.  According to Goffe, “Even the new Chocolate Factory uses just one man, a very good actor called Deep Roy- for all the Oompa Loompas. He will be cloned by computers so it will look as if there are about 300 Oompa Loompas, to be as faithful as possible to the book, in which there are hundreds and hundreds of them, apparently from a Pygmy tribe in Africa” (Goffe 1). Though it was Dahl’s intention to have every Oompa Loompa look the same, replicating the same person over and over again creates a lack of realism, and therefore it is harder to relate with the characters. The film in 1971 did not have identical Oompa Loompas; though it perfectly portrayed their similarities through their vivid green hair and bright orange skin. Each Loompa’s personality and was able to shine through; some were taller and leaner, some were shorter and plumper, and one was a woman! This alone is a reason that some people identify with the first film over the second.

The Oompa Loompa song variations were not entirely intelligible in 2005. Though each piece was different and stayed true to the formatting of Dahl’s book as well as the 1971 film, Elfman decided to produce just about ever genre of music rather than utilizing a reoccurring motif. By aiming to stay both relevant and contemporary, he chose production styles such as big band jazz, tribal beats, rock, techno, and a number of symphonic swells to carry the plot forward. It seems that by creating loud, flashy digital music, an overwhelming amount of dynamic-range compression occurred which caused a lack in high-fidelity audio and quality. Essentially, in order for a music file to be a reasonable size, the audio data in a digitally recorded waveform needs to get reduced. It is entirely too common for music in today’s culture to be over-compressed, which in turn disallows the listener the pleasure of hearing the difference between loud and quiet. While Elfman’s music sought to blow the audience away through laughter, our ears become fatigued and we do not particularly remember what we heard.

As far as memorable tunes or lyrics go, there was nothing to cling to in the 2005 movie. As quoted from the song titled “Varuca Salt,” “Varuca Salt, Varuca Salt, the little brute has just gone down the garbage chute, and she will meet as she descends, a rather different set of friends, a rather different set of friends, a rather different set of friends. A fish head, for example cut this morning from a halibut. An oyster from an oyster stew, a steak that no one else would chew, and lots of other things as well, each with a rather horrid smell, horrid smell. They are Veruca’s new found friends, that she will meet as she descends, these are Varuca’s newfound friends.” While this may be comical, we learn nothing besides the obvious fact that Varuca is a spoiled brat and she deserves to be in the garbage chute.

The lyrical content lacked meaning, and seemed as though it were used to pass the time through a scene. The lyrics were buried in the mix, and without any dynamic range, it all seemed relatively unimportant. In 1971, the Oompa Loompa songs talk about action and consequence, and just about every kid could sing it once the film was over. As quoted from the 1971 Oompa Loompa song devoted to Varuca Salt, “Who do you blame when your kid is a brat? Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat. Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame, you know exactly who’s to blame. The mother and the father.” We see the immediate meaning with this interpretation that the parents are at fault for turning their daughter into a spoiled brat. The theme about is action and consequence.
The same music in 2005 had no very little recurring theme or motif, so it was hard to catch on to Elfman’s musical direction. The Augustus Gloop song in 2005 had lyrics as follows: “This greedy brute, this louse’s ear, is loved by people everywhere!
For who could hate or bear a grudge. Against a luscious bit of fudge?” As many of the lyrics used were taken directly from Dahl’s book, these particular lyrics are hard to remember, and follow along with.

According to Belgium movie critic Ed Bloom, “Danny Elfman is one of the main attractions of the film. While his score is already classic Burton/Elfman work with some interesting experiments, the songs he wrote for the Oompas Loompas are just so funny. Those songs just don’t intend to stay with you for months. It would have been hard as they’re based on Dahl’s lyrics [and] don’t allow for any Broadway impulses. They are just offbeat numbers playing with many references in so many styles.”

In 1971, audio was still being recorded to tape which would have captured room tones, and generated very warm sounds tonally. Music that is recorded to tape feels a lot more up-close-and-personal as though the audience is there with the band or performer. As a side note, when one records to tape, it is harder to edit any nuances once everything has been recorded. Therefore, you take a much more serious approach both performing and recording in the first place: Once you hit record, you’re rolling! In order to stop and start over, or even just punch-in, you are wasting valuable time and space. Generally, performers had much more convincing, human-like performances that were easier to relate with.

Today, recording digitally is completely trivial. One can record the same thing a thousand times until it is ‘perfect’…or is it? Slowly, this digitalized process has taken the human-element out of music.  Once you have the perfect take, you can use a number of processing techniques to give your music and audio the exact sound you’re looking for.

Focusing on the music from both films, it seems that there were two incredibly different interpretations to represent the same story. The music from the first film was sincere and taught valuable lessons. The re-make was flashy, over compressed, and simply incomprehensible. It lacked a theme, and sought to use every kind of music following the idea that “bigger is better,” while the original focused on “less is more.” Though Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 2005 was nominated for an award, and produced/directed by leading pioneers in the industry, this does not mean it will out-live the original film. Bert Lance once said “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Even he reused that saying from an old Georgia farmer from in the 1930s. With many things in life, if something is working adequately well, leave it alone. However, this is how people get creative. We get inspired, reuse, and recreate material to design our own.  Hollywood makes their money off “remixing” what has already been done, as it seems to pay off that way.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was initially created in 1971, the same year that President Richard Nixon pledged to end US involvement in Vietnam. The Fall of Saigon finally occurred in 1975, but the ‘70s were both hopeful and awe-stricken times in American Society. The US launched its first space satellite, and Astronauts managed to drive on the Moon in a lunar buggy. The voting age was lowered from twenty-one to eighteen years of age. Times were drastically changing, as was technology. The microprocessor was invented, which marked the dawn of a new digital age. It is likely that some of these occurrences in society somewhat effected the direction of the film.

In 2005, The growth of the Internet was one of the prime contributors to globalization during the decade, making it possible for people to interact with each other, express ideas, introduce different cultures and backgrounds, use goods and services, sell and buy online, and both research and learn. Now that people were freely connecting between one another via the Internet, ideas were able to travel more quickly and more efficiently. People in different countries could now freely speak to one another by going online. This could be part of the explanation for the many different styles and genres of music within Burton’s Wonka movie. Music was headed in many different directions, so it is fair that Danny Elfman sought to blow the audience away.

Watching broadcasts of the Gene Wilder version years later, I deeply resonated with the messages that echoed throughout the 1971 film. Through the music, I understood how to break down uncomfortable boundaries between those who were self-entitled vs. ill-fated. I also learned the concept of cause and effect, and how consequences played you for the better or worse. Most importantly, I learned to give power and energy to my minds-eye and embrace the imagination, which in turn opened my world to opportunity. As said in “Pure Imagination,” “If you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it.” And most importantly, according to Mr. Wonka as he and Charlie flew in the clear blue sky in the glass elevator, “Don’t forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he wanted… He lived happily ever after.”


Bradshaw, Paul. “Is It Just Me…? Or Is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Better than Willy Wonka?” Total Film Movie Features RSS. Total Film: The Modern Guide to The Movies, 4 Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <;.

“Critic Reviews: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” IMDb., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <;.

“Danny Elfman- Awards.” IMDb., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

“David L. Wolper.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

Dodge, Shyam. “‘It’s an Insult!’ Gene Wilder Slams Johnny Depp Remake of His Classic Film Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.” Mail Online. N.p., 14 June 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

Healy, Patrick. Willy Wonka’ Shadows a Stage Candy Man. The New York Times. Sep. 19. 2013. <;.

Hornaday, Ann. “Sorry, Charlie.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 July 2005. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <;.

“Gene Wilder.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

“Gene Wilder Biography.” IMDb., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <;.

“Mel Stuart.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

Meriah. “Movie Talk.” Wonk-Off: Johnny Depp vs. Gene Wilder. Yahoo Movies. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <;.

Rosen, Christopher. “Gene Wilder: ‘Charlie And The Chocolate Factory’ Was ‘An Insult'”The Huffington Post., 14 June 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

Stuart, Mel, and Josh Young. “Pure Imagination: The Making of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” Pure Imagination: The Making of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory: Mel Stuart, Josh Young: 9780312287771: Books. N.p., 1 Nov. 2002. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.

Taylor, James C. “Roald Dahl’s ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ Strikes Right Notes.”Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 June 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <;.

“Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2013. <;.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s